Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

The biggest employer is normally the state. The state & EU also have to create a job & investment friendly environment, as it are successful entrepreneurs who create the wealth. Guy is a liberal and has his liberal views on the common good. The view allows not only for globalisation & free enterprise but also for re-parting the wealth in a certain measure. Anyhow, if his view is to be implemented, it will always have to be democratically legitimised. It's plain crazy to reproach the EU totalitarianism an to claim Brexit as an anti-totalitarianism move. The EU as it is cannot work. It has to move to a federation or die, as Guy says. But either way it will take much time. Meanwhile, we're going from crisis to crisis. A work in progress you could call it. Euro-sceptics see progress in the dying. The ciriticism on the trade deals is more than justified. Guy resents this because of his free market obsessions. In this he's wrong. We need good trade deals, that is equilibrated one's that protect consumers as well as give traders fair space. Eliminating EU parliament is making the EU less democratic. It needs more democracy. In this the DIEM movement of Varoufakis could be helpful. Social justice is not a grandiose idea, but a basic one. A democracy that does not entertain that idea nor strives towards it is not worth that name or status. As for nationalism, I must be a rare species.I'm nationalist - I want Belgium split and Flanders independent. My main identity is European though. The elites did not ditch nationalism altogether. Europe is still a coagulation of nations and not a federation. But even after a federation, nationalism will persist, at least a fair amount of it. It's not fair to depict Guy as a home failure , he served eight years as prime minister and to me as a Belgian, and non-Guy voter, it seamed not that bad at all. His party is actually again in the governing coalition. If Guy hasn't been appointed President of the EU, it's because of his opposing the invasion of Irak, a stance that was wholly admirable as well. Bush-Blair vetoed him. so his not as power thirsty as claimed, isn't he?

Verhofstadt has been the epitome of EU decline for many years. Recall how he joined Germany and Russia against the Atlantic Alliance before the Iraq War in 2003. Recall how he has championed a European defense Union, as he does in this article, against NATO for many ears. Note his disregard for the views of European citizens Anyone who criticizes existing logic is labelled a nationalist. The future of Europe is a very important issue, but Project Syndicate brings very few fresh ideas.

GV epitomizes the crisis of leadership. He airily dismisses the views of the voter and exports leaders to go for broke on ever closer. He fails to ask why the EU is not popular beyond slapping on the latest fashionable label of globalism and the left-behinds. While calling for more federalism he carefully avoids spelling out any detail because he must surely know that the average voter simply doesnt want it.
One possible explanation: shifting power to Brussels means shifting power to him.
If this is the dream of political thought in Brussels, things are worse that the media is portraying.

"Resurgent nationalism" is not a problem. There has always been demand for nationalism, because it constitutes part of the identity of an ordinary nation state's citizen. And without nation states, there would not be modern civilisation.

When our new elites abandoned nationalism, the enlightened version of it slowly succumbed to a dumbed-down version of the masses. It is the elites' abandonment of nationalism as an ideology that has left the common man bereaved of any worthy identity. He's poor, his cultural views are obsolete, he's an untermensch in a world governed by people he doesn't care about - and who don't care about him.

No wonder these people are lost and are easily turned to the worst version of the only greater communal identity they ever had. If we as intellectual elites indeed believe nationalism is done for, WHAT identity do we offer an ordinary citizen? Europe? Multiculturalism? Feminism?

I think you have hit on a very sound observation. Equally I would argue that as a Manageent Consultant one of the principles we are taught in "managing change" is to (at all costs) get the buy in and acceptance of those subject to the change BEFORE you make the change. Here the EU has spectacularly failed. By undertaking a project through stealth and subterfuge and sneaking change on people without not even their consent or knowledge they have in fact made the "subjects" of the change hostile and extremely angry thus blowing up the change acceptance and creating a deeply hostile and angry atmosphere. Yet, to deal with the hostile reaction their solution is "more of the same" you really couldn't make this nightmare fantasy up!

The biggest employer is normally the state. The state & EU also have to create a job & investment friendly environment, as it are successful entrepreneurs who create the wealth. Guy is a liberal and has his liberal views on the common good. The view allows not only for globalisation & free enterprise but also for re-parting the wealth in a certain measure. Anyhow, if his view is to be implemented, it will always have to be democratically legitimised. It's plain crazy to reproach the EU totalitarianism an to claim Brexit as an anti-totalitarianism move. The EU as it is cannot work. It has to move to a federation or die, as Guy says. But either way it will take much time. Meanwhile, we're going from crisis to crisis. A work in progress you could call it. Euro-sceptics see progress in the dying. The ciriticism on the trade deals is more than justified. Guy resents this because of his free market obsessions. In this he's wrong. We need good trade deals, that is equilibrated one's that protect consumers as well as give traders fair space. Eliminating EU parliament is making the EU less democratic. It needs more democracy. In this the DIEM movement of Varoufakis could be helpful. Social justice is not a grandiose idea, but a basic one. A democracy that does not entertain that idea nor strives towards it is not worth that name or status. As for nationalism, I must be a rare species.I'm nationalist - I want Belgium split and Flanders independent. My main identity is European though. The elites did not ditch nationalism altogether. Europe is still a coagulation of nations and not a federation. But even after a federation, nationalism will persist, at least a fair amount of it. It's not fair to depict Guy as a home failure , he served eight years as prime minister and to me as a Belgian, and non-Guy voter, it seamed not that bad at all. His party is actually again in the governing coalition. If Guy hasn't been appointed President of the EU, it's because of his opposing the invasion of Irak, a stance that was wholly admirable as well. Bush-Blair vetoed him. so his not as power thirsty as claimed, isn't he?

Guy, do you realise that the JC Juncker is the one that enable tax dodging of the large multinationals ?
Any political figure to emerge as a "leader" will not be allowed to emerge in the EU context, as there is no direct election. Any EU political figure who would call Juncker a criminal in direct election would have my vote. Any leader that would impose a banking blocade on the Bahamas, Panama, Lichtenstein and and Switzerland would have my vote. Any leader that would make lobbying transparent and balanced, and that would forbid revolving doors, would have my vote.
But the status quo is in the DNA of the EU..The coopting of the commissioners ensure that only those that are pre-establishment are selected. A Bernie SAnders or Jose Mujica has no chances to win, as there are not even direct elections.

So as long as you have Juncker there, count with me for a protest vote.

Russian expansionism? I suppose you refer to Russian response to a US/Soros instigated coup in Ukraine? That would make it REACTIVE, not expansionist.

"Impeding social mobility and undermining social justice?" I assume you refer to sovereign nations reclaiming their rights as sovereigns from you typically unelected bureaucrats that think you know what's best for us?

With the message that the Brits sent, and the rumblings in Germany and France, you remind me of Marie Antoinette in her Ivory Tower. You wont figure it out until the peasants you despise so much are bashing in your door.

The same can be said for The Establishment here in the USA. They can huff, and they can puff, but Trump will be the new Sheriff in town. The "race card" no longer has the desired effect. Now it backfires.

There a several problems with the idea that Europe “faces a stark choice: a leap forward toward unification or inevitable disintegration”. On problem is that we have heard this too many times before. The cliché that that crisis is an opportunity is well past its elite sell-by date; that being partly because it cannot mobilise citizens and indeed it provokes too much push-back. Another reason why the idea is problematical, and indeed deeply concerning, is because it shows that in certain circles the capacity to learn and to innovate has deteriorated. Some decades ago in academic circles the idea was expressed in terms of functionalism – a rigid ideology that saw all and any phenomena (success, failure, whatever) as triggering further action in a semi-automatic manner, such that policy makers had only to follow the lurching of the machine. No-one in academia thinks that way anymore. Apparently some still do in the EP. Which is a shame for those of us who still harbour hopes for that institution.

There is a leadership crisis because in all the world , with few exceptions, there is a leadership crisis. Europe is in good company. Look at the appalling record of governance in the USA today, the poor choices the electorate is given and pretty much, one has to despair!!!
This is not a fixable problem in the current model we have for government. Society must first go through a massive change. Society will go through a massive change. In fact it cannot be avoided, since we live in a finite world.

Guy, your article exposes your complete lack of understanding of the causes of the EU's current crises. It is all about saving the EU's skin, rather than stepping back and looking at how and why the EU has arrived at this low point.

The Freedom of movement mantra that the UK has been hearing for years, has caused huge social and political pressures right across Europe yet the EU appears deaf and oblivious to this extremely dangerous policy. Dangerous because to allow large numbers of foreign peoples to seek out work in a borderless EU means that dysfunctional governments can continue to fail their own people and those governments and societies that are successful, are over burdened by people seeking a better life. Very little consideration is given to the people who live in any one country; their language; customs; values and ways of life. Without any discussion or consent people are forced to have their villages and towns flooded by "foreigners" only too pleased to get away from low income Poland; or bankrupt Greece; or unemployed Italy; etc etc. Yes the the escape valve for political failure is that huge numbers of people just up sticks and move elsewhere...but is it really that simple?

The UK approached the EU earlier this year for help. It explained that we have had over five million new migrants moving to our crowded island and this had caused major problems for us.

When we (foolishly) opened the door to Poland and the eastern accession countries on the implication that just 10,000 Poles would move to the UK little did we know that number would be closer to 1,000,000. Yes, the UK is more successful than most of the other 27 euro countries, because we work hard and we spend less and we do more than our fair share on defence and aid. We explained to the EU we could not take any more mass migration. We don't have the housing; the medical services; the schools and infrastructure to balloon our population and the fact that many of the countries have very different cultures to our own was putting huge strains on employment and social cohesion.

As a mother with two children let me tell you what the "communitaire" EU is doing to my community. My children won't be able to afford a home as the costs of buying a home are vastly greater than the salaries now on offer. With huge numbers of the unemployed coming to the UK salaries have been horribly depressed for decades, our quality of life is plummeting downward. Getting an appointment at the doctors is increasingly difficult, we have to wait up to two weeks. Getting a place at University is now a fight, as we now have to compete with thousands of foreign students all wanting a British education and having their expenses paid for by the British taxpayer with increasing reports that foreign students are NOT repaying their student loans. We have programmes illustrating Bulgarian and Hungarian skill free workers claiming benefits and welfare and using the cash to build mini mansions back home.

Our children have to compete with every nationality for a job, and we are not allowed to favour British nationals so our taxes which pay for the educational institutions, the medical and social facilities go straight to new arrivals who have never contributed anything, who (in the main) are skill free workers who will qualify for in work benefits we taxpayers have to pay whilst we see our own children put to the back of the queue.

The EU is deaf and blind to the difficulties. It cares not that Britain suffers because we do the right thing. Europe is a disgrace, the governments who "take" ignore the pressures on those that "give", it is not a balanced playing field and the pathetic resolution to objections by imposing "majority voting" saw countries like Britain becoming a cash cow to Europe but with no say on the amounts demanded or in the way it was spent.

The EU is a replication of the USSR; a Statist monolith; devoid of democracy; deaf to reasoned argument; deaf to the assistance asked by States to ease transitions; deaf to real practical issues to do with democracy; values and culture; deaf to reason and in the end will be deaf to rationality.

The UK could have been kept in the EU family by providing the special requests it asked, because in the end the UK always was a special case; an island; a nuclear power; liberator (with the USA) of Europe; thriving economy; a free market approach; a country with long connections from its former Empire; the founding nation of the English language and an opinion former on the world stage.
What the EU loses by so poorly handling the UK in its reasonable requests is its credibility as a democratic; coherent; responsive and fair minded organisation - for indeed the Schultz and Junker farce demonstrate that the EU is a hostage to bureaucrats and their vanity. The EU is not about jobs; a thriving economy; a sound security policy; or a democratic zone, if it were these issues would have been addressed years ago. The EU is about power and control over the "ignorant masses" a pathetic paternalistic central planning model to favour Germany and France and disadvantage everyone else. The Euro a horrible premature mistake with no positive end game.
The UK voted to leave Europe because we were not being listened to; we were not being respected; we were not being valued for what we have done in Europe in the past and through our 40 year association.
The EU is totally responsible for Brexit and it should have the shame and humility to make a British offer to keep the UK in the EEA and accept that it should have taken our please more seriously and it should have looked closer at the pain we were in before forcing us to keep our welcoming door jammed open.

Christine Constable
Well said. The free flow of goods is great, but in the EU we do not need the free flow of people. It is wrecking societies all over the EU. It is just a theoretical ideal made up by Europhiles and has to be abandond asap.

+ 1
...The unfortunate predicament is that Majorities worldwide never learnt without Meltdowns.
...The Zero was excommunicated before The Decimal System replaced The Roman Numerals.
...Britain eschewed The Anglosphere to embrace Europe - after 400 years; and the result is still Brexit.
...One is left wondering with bewilderment for an answer that is best.
...Hope lies forever just one step away.

The EU faces unprecedented challenges, including how to make the single currency work, halting climate change, managing immigration, and restoring economic growth in southern Europe - where youth unemployment threatens future stability. However, the changes in policy needed to deal with these challenges are simply not possible with current EU thinking.

The one change which is needed above all others is to make the President of the European Commission a publicly elected post. Using blockchain, the technology to hold an election across 300 million EU citizens is now entirely possible, and the results on EU policy would be transformative. EU citizens would for the first time be able to elect a president with their own interests at heart, instead of one who continues to follow a failed vision for "ever closer union" - a vision which most citizens of Europe simply do not want.

OF course getting consensus and support from individual national governments would remain a huge challenge for the EU commission, but their hand in negotiations would also be greatly strengthened if they have a popular mandate from an EU wide vote.

Of course Mr Junker is unlikely to be a fan of such a democratic idea, but if the EU is to find its way to a better future it must be through increasing democracy as the basis for change.

I am afraid that the solution will turn out to be a split. During the cold war there was a prosperous (though not without troubles which is wort remembering) west, and poor east and south. The west was an example that the east and the south were aspiring to. EU is an attempt to join these three worlds and it is manifestly failing. Perhaps it will take couple more generations for the people of the east and the south to make their choices and work through their issues. It would be quite tragic if that example of western Europe, once an inspiration, was to itself collapse into nationalism or some form of fascism. Time to assume a protective posture. True leadership is the ability to recognize the reality, make the reality and the choices that it entails clear to the voters, and inspiring them to have hope for the future.

On the cultural level, there might be a lot to do to make the different people of the EU compatible in the long term. For example, the great exchange students programs at the level of high school and university could become mandatory to maximize mutual respect and understanding. For the time being, the EU is more of a cultural mix-bag of western secularists vs neo-christians easterners, post pre industrial era colonial hispanics vs post industrial era colonial franco-anglo-germano-dutchs vs non-post colonial central european countries that however are post colonized (by the soviets) etc. There are also somehow contradicting arguments that go around, for example, through maximization of trade, the material well being of the average european might be improved, meanwhile, some argue that it would also maximize global warming, which in turn would guarantee maximal migration from the south, which would enrich in the eyes of some, but impoverish in the eyes of others the cultural well being of the average european. At the end of the day, a stick together solution seems definitely the more mature solution for the europeans, as present and future global problems can only be solved together, a european together together vs a chinese together and hopefully a soon to be materialized african together etc.

Guy Verhofstadt says the EU is going through a leadership crisis, and Angela Merkel said at the EU summit in Bratislava last week that the bloc was at a critical point. The question is who to blame for the crisis, the national leaders of the European Council, or the executive branch , the EU Commission with its 28 commissioners? The European Parliament is just a legislatiave body with co-decision powers.
Before the Eurozone crisis, the world heard little of Angela Merkel. In 2010 as Europe was criticised for being rudderless, Merkel stepped into the limelight. Since then she has been described as the de facto leader of the EU - the main force for keeping the European project together, by negotiating bailout packages in Brussels and convincing the reluctant Budestag to endorse them. And she is the longest serving leader within the bloc.
The author points out that the upcoming national elections in France and Germany "will be bellwethers for the future of European leadership." Sadly Merkel's political position at home has been diminished at a critical time, when the EU is in crisis. In recent regional elections, her Christian Democratic Union and its junior partner, the Social Democratic Party, had suffered "notable losses," at the expense of of far-right populist party Alternative für Deutschaldn (AfD). Germany’s grand coalition is "at risk" ahead of next year’s election. The future of the European project threatens to unravel.
Is what the author suggesting realistic? "Merkel has two choices: She can move to the right, as former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has done in his latest bid for the French presidency, or she can fight to hold the center by addressing the AfD’s simplistic arguments head on. The choice is clear: Merkel should stand and fight, while also advancing an alternative vision for modernizing the EU." He ought to know that Merkel's political survival depends not on European, but national issues.
While the author says that the "EU’s institutional impotence is apparent," he offers little advice as how to take "a leap forward toward unification" to avoid an "inevitable disintegration." In the past he said there had been a "failure in the way we govern Europe - it's inter-governmental...we need a far more integrated Europe". He criticised leaders for being reluctant to make a choice, and "afraid of paying a high domestic political price for pursuing an agenda of EU reform." But these leaders need to be elected at home, before they are sent to Brussels.
According to the author a much closer political union would strengthen the "economic-governance structures" within the Eurozone. He fears that "Europe’s ongoing financial crisis will only continue, impeding social mobility and undermining social justice."
His appeal is a tall order for EU leaders - to "offer Europeans a new social contract, based on the understanding that people’s legitimate fears about globalization should be met with a collective, progressive European response." It's true that the "EU has been a major force behind globalization, and only the EU has the power to help manage the consequences. European leaders must explain to their voters why nationalism cannot." This commentary reveals the author's own failure as Belgium's prime minister - more theories than practical advice that serves real problems.﻿

Social Justice? You have to earn the money and make the wealth to start spouting on about grandiose ideas like social justice. Making the west work hard so the east and south can lie out in the sun is not "social justice" - for "equality" everyone has to be equally industrious - wake up and smell the coffee, some work a lot harder than others....and should those who work hard pass their wealth to those that don't to achieve "social justice"?????

You describe what we all know but do not come with any solutions.
Bringing and maintaining coordination in Europe is undoubtly a huge challenge.
But I must say that I am not impressed by the role the EU commision and the EU Parliament has ben playing.
Instead of functioning like oil in the wheels of EU cooperation it functions like sand.
They want more immigrants, more EU expansion, an EU superstate, while most countries do not want that.
My suggestion is to look at organisations that work well, like NATO or big international corporations.
When you compare with the latter. They keep the authority to make decissions with line management ( in case of the EU the Government Leaders). They have at the central level a small highly qualified Staff ( instead of large EU commission). The Staff studies, consults, monitors and coordinates but does not decide. The EU will get more room to shape their own laws, with help from the central Staff.
Since the EU is not a country there is no need for a Parliament, or perhaps one with considerably reduced tasks.
Expected results: a EU management more directed at serving the EU citizen, more flexibilty, more resolute and at lower costs.

Thibaut l
My suggestion is to learn from successfull organizations, not to simply copy them.
My idea is that EU proposals are directly authorised by the national parliaments, thereby is democracy guaranteed.
The EU parliament will than not be needed.
Also countries should more directly cooperate on developing plans, with help of the EU.
To put it bluntly: the Brussel bureacrats should more often leave their office and devop their plans in close cooperation with their customers, the countries in Europe.
That will improve the quality of their plans as well their acceptance, which also adds to democracy.
It sad to see how the EU commission gets herself in trouble again and again.
Example: last week mrs Verstaget wanted to change the Corp0rate Tax system. Mrs Verstaget dropped like a paratrooper from the sky and suddenly announced publicly that she was going to tax, retroactivley, Apple Corp with a 13 billion Euro tax.
Perhaps it is a good idea to revise the EU tax laws, but implementing that without a time line and without considering the consequences is poor management.

The trade deals are rejected because people perceive it to be products of multinational companies collusion how to screw us all in a managed market that move profits to the 0,1 % only.
The bad part is that there are facts on the ground pointing in the same direction.

The EU is a monetary union with separate nationalist governments. Such a half baked union simply cannot work - either you do what America did and create a federal government or you revert back to where you were before.

To keep pretending that what you have now will work slightly modified form (e.g. shared military spending) is folly because there is simply a massive conflict of interests in the whole setup.

That´s the problem with federalists. They talk nicely in general, idealistic terms, but have no practical solutions to real-world problems.

Guy Verhofstadt, do you know how to fix the eurozone? Tell us. Because that´s the key question in Europe. Eurozone is unsustainable in its current form, just kicking the can down the road wont work anymore. Realistically, there are two options. Breakup or transfer union. Transfer union is anathema to Germans and all northerners, and most importantly it would never work. Permanent subsidies never work, because they take out the initiative to improve. Italian North has been subsidizing South for decades and the gap between the two is as big as ever. European North could be subsidizing South for decades without any real improvement in the latter, and just weakening and alienating the former.

Sometimes you need to make a step back to move forward. Eurozone was rushed in and unprepared. European integration needs to be dialed-back, temporarily, so that in one day in the future we can have a real, working monetary union.
OR
We can keep on dreaming, making unrealistic, utopian proposals until the eurozone breaks up violently, making all the post breakup cooperation impossible. For centuries.

So make your choice federalists, but be fast, because the time is ticking.

The EU should honestly accept Brexit as a last gasp attempt from the EU to flag up that it is failing. The UK made a self less act in voting to leave against a back drop of the sky falling in - we did that (and I was a Leave campaigner) because I saw that vote as the LAST CHANCE to reject totalitarianism, I did it to allow my children to breathe the fresh air of self determination, and I did it to force those in the EU to get out of their group think and come into the real world which is suffering badly because of a string of failed EU policies and an EU deafness to criticism or solution finding. All lip service to the massive problems we are facing Junker and Schultz need to go.

“The common good” – always a chilling phrase when used by an ideologue.

I see the “Common good” for the EU as a split in the Euro; a roll back of somewhere close 30% of all EU driven legislation and scrapping much of what is in the current legislative pipeline. I doubt Guy Verhofstadt has the same idea of what constitutes “The common good” and therein lies the problem.

Unlike Guy Verhofstadt I am happy to completely change my view and agree with his vision of the European future, if he can get it democratically legitimised.

Good point. Each person has their own definition of common good. For example, Hitler wrote a whole book to lay out his, but it seems current EU politicians have learnt from his errors are happy to content themselves with only a few hundred words.
/tongue in cheek font off.

We do not want the EU to create jobs. We want Italy, France, Spain and several others, to do their homework and create the conditions for investors to create jobs. It is a fundamental error of eurocrats that the EU could do anything against the political and economic stagnation in several member states if the respective political forces do not do it. They all just want to borrow more to dole out privileges, entitlements and the expansion of particularly corruption-prone public works.